A Development-Driven Post WTO World



The unitarian project of the WTO has reached its limits: it has successfully achieved significant political economy convergence throughout the world, but the costs and adequacy of neoliberalism are now squarely challenged. More specifically, the dominant interpretation of WTO agreements that subordinates developmental issues to trade liberalization is problematic to developing countries. As the legal flexibilities for developmental policies at the WTO are limited and dwindling, developing countries are using de facto flexibilities. Moreover, developing countries, like their rich country counterparts, are seeking alternative trade agreements outside the WTO. What does that mean for the WTO system and international economic law more generally? Moving away from the unitarian ethos of the WTO, a pluralist order can create positive opportunities both at the WTO and outside of it to respond to pressures. However, to ensure a pluralist order is development friendly, such a regime must meet the core needs of the emerging economies for market access and policy diversity.


  1. Chow DCK (2003) Organized crime, local protectionism, and the trade in counterfeit goods in China. China Econ Rev 14(4):473–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hanessian G, Duggal K (2016) The 2015 India Model BIT: is this the change the world wishes to see? ICSID Rev 32(1):216–226. Scholar
  3. Lang A (2019) Heterodox markets and ‘market distortions’ in the global trading system. J Int Econ Law 22(4):677–719. Scholar
  4. Matsushita M (2019) The WTO shares the governance of international trade with FTAs and other international organizations. In: Paradise lost or found? The post-WTO international legal order (Utopian & Dystopian possibilities). University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 9–10 January 2019Google Scholar
  5. Pauwelyn J (2003) Conflict of norms in public international law: how WTO law relates to other rules of international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ranjan P (2014) India and bilateral investment treaties – a changing landscape. ICSID Rev 29(2):419–450. Scholar
  7. Rodrik D (2011) The globalization paradox: democracy and the future of the world economy. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Shaffer G (2019) Bargaining over policy space in trade negotiations. In: Santos A, Thomas C, Trubek DM (eds) World trade and investment law reimagined. Anthem, New York, pp 183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Snyder F (2010) The EU, the WTO and China: legal pluralism and international trade regulation. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northeastern University School of LawBostonUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations